are discussing.
Hmm client side scripting on an e-commerce site. There's the signature of an amateur.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Gov web site doesn't like W's !!!
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Had a letter from my ISP (virgin media) telling me they will no longer be an option for a dial up service noit that I have one but it's nice of tehm to infom me I guess.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Tim Streater posted
I doubt that. Customers who want to buy machine parts aren't that keen on fancy knobs and bells. Certainly, most would rather have Mike's site than a site where you can't enter certain alphabetic characters on the input forms, which is where your script-obsession evidently leads.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
FiLs C5 has failed expensively (DPF I think) luckily under warranty. Trouble is no independent garage has the diagnostic kit and the Citroen garage has a 3 week waiting list. Needless to say he wil not buy another Citroen.
MBQ
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
what tosh. badly written code is badly written code whether it is on a server or a client.
no one is script obsessed here except you.
One merely notes that it is always an option and for some sites a necessity if you want to achieve something the end user is happy to use.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Why not just admit you were wrong?
MBQ
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
I've been using it for 8 years with no problems. Small scale site with nothing too clever.
MBQ
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Nothing fancy about doing a simple job in what from the user's PoV is the simplest way - the way that f'rinstance most printer cartridge websites I have ever visited operate.
From which I conclude that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
How would that (assuming you mean a slow link) make it less possible?
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Tim Streater :
The point is that it can easily be done and doesn't use JavaScript. It's clean and simple. You're insisting on using JavaScript to provide what is in many ways a worse interface. Most people would find a simple immediately-visible list of links, compared with a drop-down list, quicker and easier to use. Fewer clicks, usually less scrolling.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
yu are downloading a page three times with a very minor change. Thats means it will ALL download three times.
by that time on a slow link mosts people have given up.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Not a minor change, you get the complete next sub list.
Not "ALL" the browser cache will take care of any images. Tha majority of the rest will be changed content to give the next range of choices.
Only if it's form over function eye candy site. I've not looked at how a javscript driven "select this, get this range of options" drop down menu system works. I guess it can either down load all the data then select the bits to show or download the next range on selection. The former uses far more data than is required, the latter not that much different to the page by page method...
What is *really* annoying are sites that are perfectly useable without javascript until you come to submit a form or following a link that requires javascipt. A link FFS why does that *need* javascript? And why no non-javascript form submission? Can't be for "security" or "validation" as anybody up to no good would hand craft the eventual HTTP message based on reverse engineering the script or packet sniffing.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
No, you're downloading three very different pages.
The first page will arrive more quickly, because you're not downloading data for types of printer and models that the user has no interest in. Ditto the second page. As a user, this seems better and less likely to make me give up.
And you still haven't said why this method is not possible. It clearly is possible.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Of course you are, that's just the point. With javascript (and ajax), when the user selects the manufacturer, you then download just the printer models for that manufacturer and build the second menu. If you had a link there, you download that information *anyway*,*plus* the rest of the page.
Clearly its possible. Just looks stupid that's all.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Tim Streater :
OK, so you've decided to use Ajax which means that not only does the user need JavaScript, they also need a reasonably up-to-date JavaScript. And there is a delay between selections in both cases, just a slightly longer one with the old-school solution. The rest of the page, if properly designed, is low in volume and readily cached.
That's just your opinion, and I don't share it. To me as a user it looks good and works better, and indicates a web designer who considers functionality first.
I like to have as few clicks as possible, to be able to use the back button or the history button for navigation, to be able to bookmark and print the pages showing the lists, and to be able to easily find those pages using search engines. Designs of the type you describe usually deny me all of those. Here I'm talking about dynamic page construction in general, not just the printer example in particular. There are places where dynamic page construction is useful, but this isn't one of them.
And let's not forget that this example was quoted as somewhere where you
*needed* JavaScript. What a joke. A single PHP page could do the job while making navigation, bookmarking, printing and searching easier, and making absolutely minimal demands on the client software.- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
Tim Streater posted
I don't know anything about writing javascript, but I've got a long and painful experience of using over-engineered websites. My work requires that I examine hundreds of them every week. It takes me at least three times as long to do my browsing with JS switched on than with it switched off. Guess which I do.